Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GGZ


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  16:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

GGZ

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A disambig which only consists of two redlinks. There is no speedy criterion as far as I know, therefore I nominate it here. Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

*Keep: legitimate dab page disambiguating two entities which are mentioned in blue-linked articles. Pam D  11:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC) See below


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * fwiw, the first redlink is orphaned except for this disambiguation page and therefore violates MOS:DABRL, but that's a minor issue.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see now that it was deleted at AfD this morning. I think I feel the urge to create an article for the Dutch health organisation ... Pam  D  17:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to (new article) Dutch Association of Mental Health and Addiction Care, native name GGZ Nederland. Gaming Zone entry not a legitimate dab page entry as does not appear to be mentioned in either of its blue links. Pam  D  17:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There were entries meeting MOS:DABRL, on the page and ready to be added. Now has two blue links plus valid see also. First entry should be deleted as doesn't meet MOS:DABRL and isn't mentioned on linked articles. Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Should have found the airline. Not sure about the ptm hospital or the call sign, and agree that the gaming zone needs to go. But healthcare + airline = valid dab. Pam  D  07:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, would you please look the page over as it is now and consider withdrawing the nomination? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? It is only here for four days, may be someone else could find more articles. The nomination itself was fully legitimate.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason I suggested looking at it again is because I don't think it meets deletion criteria. Keeping an AfD open when it's got to the point where improvements show it doesn't meet criteria isn't helpful, it wastes people's time looking it over and commenting. You may feel the nomination was fully legitimate (I would disagree, as a bit of WP:BEFORE research would have shown how the page could be improved without deletion) but I think it's clear that now it is not legitimate. We don't keep things at AfD to see if legitimate pages can be further improved - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Boleyn (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer another user to close this nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.